What are the pros and cons of separation of church and state?

Answer 1

Pros: reduced oppression, greater freedom.

Cons: none (unless you consider the ability to oppress others a pro)

Answer 2

The separation of church and state needs to be clarified a bit. This separation does not mean that church is eliminated from the boundaries of the country, that would be a church free state or athiest nation. The separation of church and state is the recognition that the state has particular jobs that it fulfills, and the church as its own particular jobs and the two should not directly be affecting eachother. Church can influence people to vote certain ways, but so can any organization.

The separation decays when the state is used to enforce the particular beliefs of a religous group. The challenge is that the nation has to some how decide what is a "universal belief" and what is a "paritcular belief." In democractically elected representative systems, like the US, this is essentially decided by debate between representative relative to the will of thier constituency.

That being said, the best source for this discussion comes from Thomas Hobbes in his work "Leviathin" which is credited as being one of the first substantial works to discuss the idea. It is often cited as an guiding influence on the founding fathers of the U.S.

Pros:
1. Freedom to debate - Religions by definition are substaniated on Faith which essentially precludes the ability to question. From this inability to question comes an implict authority by the pronoucers to lay further claim upon what is and is not debatable.
2. Open Scientific Investigation - The inability to question also leads to the development of taboo areas of investigation. For example, for centuries scientist who were interested in understanding how the body works by cutting into cadavers were treated as criminals, run out of town, excommunicated, or killed for the "unholy act" which is now a requirement of a modern physician.
3. Greater chance to cooperate with more people - Government is an organization that tries to allow people to work together, coin money, pave roads, educate, prosecute criminals. By trying to find those things that majority of the population can agree on there is a better chance of everyone benefitting.

Cons:
As mentioned by many of the other answers there are multiple Cons, for me, most of these have to do with what was discussed in the Pros. Humans seem to get along better when we can discuss and debate our problems to find answers that we can substantiate with actual data.

Answer 3

First separation of church and state must be understood for what it is. We throw words around today without knowing what they mean. It causes a lot of unnecessary controversy.
Separation of church and state was put into effect because the United States in it's beginnings did not want to be like England, where there was one religion imposed on all the people by government, that being the Church of England. In America , according to our laws the government can not start and or enforce a religion. We are free to have and live according to our own beliefs. That government also insures us freedom of speech in that we are free to worship God and speak and share our faith and our religious convictions. We are free to celebrate our religion. There is no law that says we cannot speak of and about the God of our understanding.

Answer 4

I fear some of these replies are from people who have fallen for the 'modern day' interpretation of this phrase. The concept of separation isn't in the consititution. What is there is a ban against the establishment of a state religion, and the guarantee of your freedom to practice and express your own religion. This freedom is all but dead in today's court-dominated country. Activist judges side time after time with ACLU who wants to ban all expression of religion. This is absolutely against the constitution. When a high school valedictorian is silenced in mid-speech merely for thanking God for His help in their achievements, then there IS no freedom to exercise your own religion. This idea that religion can't be mentioned in public is absurd.

I do NOT support the establishment of a state religion. The constitution clearly forbids this.

I DO support the individual's right to express their faith anytime, anywhere, without fear of reprisal or being silenced by the state simply for exercising their faith.

Now if their faith involved killing others who don't subscribe to their religion, then you've got a different matter. That's murder, and should be prosecuted appropriately.

But an individual thanking God in a public place has that rught guaranteed in the constitution, and the day will come when the courts are overturned, if not by our government, then by God Almighty, and that is a day I hope to be here to see.

Separation of church and state? Not in the constitution. Banning the establishment of a state religion? GOOD.
Banning the free exercise of my own religion? BAD and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Answer 5

One pro I can think of is that it protects religious organizations from being "taken over" and exploited by government -- which is really one of the purposes of the idea in the first place.

The one con I can think of: the idea of church-state separation can be twisted, and interpreted to mean something that it does not mean.

Specifically, many people seem to think that the idea of "separation of church and state" is supposed to protect us from religion.

It's not. It's supposed to protect us from government.

We have other constitutional protections against the government intruding into our homes, our families, and our private lives.

The church-state separation idea is supposed to also keep the govt from intruding into our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

Unfortunately, certain opportunistic secularists have twisted the First Amendment's plain meaning, using it to squelch any mention of God from the public square.

That's wrong. That's one of the other cons of it -- that it can be misused by those with an anti-religious axe to grind.

Answer 6

One pro I can think of is that it protects religious organizations from being "taken over" and exploited by government -- which is really one of the purposes of the idea in the first place.

The one con I can think of: the idea of church-state separation can be twisted, and interpreted to mean something that it does not mean.

Specifically, many people seem to think that the idea of "separation of church and state" is supposed to protect us from religion.

It's not. It's supposed to protect us from government.

We have other constitutional protections against the government intruding into our homes, our families, and our private lives.

The church-state separation idea is supposed to also keep the govt from intruding into our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

Unfortunately, certain opportunistic secularists have twisted the First Amendment's plain meaning, using it to squelch any mention of God from the public square.

That's wrong. That's one of the other cons of it -- that it can be misused by those with an anti-religious axe to grind.

Answer 7

One pro I can think of is that it protects religious organizations from being "taken over" and exploited by government -- which is really one of the purposes of the idea in the first place.

The one con I can think of: the idea of church-state separation can be twisted, and interpreted to mean something that it does not mean.

Specifically, many people seem to think that the idea of "separation of church and state" is supposed to protect us from religion.

It's not. It's supposed to protect us from government.

We have other constitutional protections against the government intruding into our homes, our families, and our private lives.

The church-state separation idea is supposed to also keep the govt from intruding into our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

Unfortunately, certain opportunistic secularists have twisted the First Amendment's plain meaning, using it to squelch any mention of God from the public square.

That's wrong. That's one of the other cons of it -- that it can be misused by those with an anti-religious axe to grind.

Answer 8

All one has to do is look at IRAN to see how important this premise is. We must NOT allow religious law interfere or bias SECULAR law. You see religious laws only serve those that believe in that particular religion while SECULAR law crosses that boundary and covers all people. Yes the laws are influenced by religious tenants, but not entirely based upon them, and that's a GOOD THING!!! Maintain maximum separation between Chruch and State! PEACE!

Answer 9

All through history it has proven deadly for God's people, Babylon king forced them to worship the golden image or die, Daniel forced not to pray to any god but the king, the catholic church during the dark ages, etc.

However, the Bible predicts a similar thing to happen in Revelation 13 before He comes again. So I guess it happening would make His coming nearer and our redemption closer - for those who are looking for it atleast.

Answer 10

Pros - No religion in government, all legislation is based on personal freedom and reason and not "righteousness"

Con - None.